Fidelity to the Gospel in Dark Times

I know that mentioning Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is not an earth-shattering revelation. As shocking as it is to me that our country is on the verge of electing a man who opposed a bill in the state senate that passed 99-0 in the U.S. Senate, what is more shocking to me is the defense of his vote that he gave at the time.

Currently, he is claiming that he voted against the bill each time due to the danger it might pose to Roe v. Wade. As we now know, that is a false statement for two reasons.

First, there was language in the bill that would have protected Roe. Whether it did or did not is immaterial except for the fact that it may make his opposition to it all the more revolting.

Second, new audio reveals Obama stated another reason for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. At the time, Obama said he opposed the measure because saving a child born alive would interfere with a decision a mother had already made to terminate her pregnancy. He says it with such shocking callousness!

Please think about what he is saying. He is saying that having another doctor assess whether an infant could live interferes with a mother's desire to kill it.

In fact, Obama even defends partial-birth abortion in this statement. He is describing a scenario in which: 1) the life of the mother is not in danger (NOTE: even those who desire to keep the practice legal couch their arguments in terms of saving the life of the mother; 2) she has decided to undergo a partial-birth abortion; 3) the infant has been born and could survive; but 4) the mother has decided the baby should die and that decision should not be interfered with.

What is the proper response to this as a Christian? I think it is a renewed emphasis on the proclamation of the gospel. My hope lies not with the alternative to Barack Obama, but with a renewed emphasis on proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Opposition to abortion is certainly not a uniquely Christian position. People of all religious faiths and no faiths at all oppose abortion. But the Christian, I believe, has a unique reason to oppose abortion, just as he has a unique opposition to theft or murder or lying. He sees these acts as infringements upon mankind's responsibility to magnify the name of God. Abortion especially contradicts that purpose as it devalues human life and exalts the decision of an individual over the revealed will of the creator.

These are dark times. We do not despair in them, nor are we overwhelmed. We simply cling ever more tightly to the precious promises of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

What's a Pro-Lifer to Do?

Much is being made of the Democratic Party's decision to include a new phrase in its party platform. The new language is aimed at attracting the pro-life voter who finds Obama personally appealing, but abortion morally repugnant (admit it, he seems like a nice guy). At the same time, the McCain camp is sending out signals that the VP slot on the ticket may go to a pro-choice politician like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman.

On the one hand, I feel a degree of excitement that the Democratic party may be backing off on its radical support of abortion. On the other hand, the new statement is, in my opinion, less than breathtaking. The platform now states: "The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs."

You read that right. They "strongly support" the decision to have a child. That begs the question: what was the old position? Bloomberg reports that this new language was the result of negotiations between pro-life and pro-choice forces: "The compromise language is the result of behind-the-scenes negotiations with abortion-rights groups and religious leaders on both sides of the issue."

Is that chilling? How long were the negotiations? How long did it take pro-life forces within the Democratic party to get their pro-choice colleagues to acknowledge that they would support the decision of a woman to keep her baby? What was the starting point for the pro-choicers? "We support the decision of a woman as long as that decision is to terminate her pregnancy?" We live in a sick, sick world.

Lest it appear I'm taking sides, I don't know where John McCain will land on this issue. His campaign is at least sending signals that he will not end up in a place that pleases me. Picking a pro-choice running mate would clearly indicate that McCain doesn't consider it a core issue. Does anyone think he would pick an anti-war running mate? Of course not. McCain's convictions on the war are genuine and deeply felt. Unfortunately, his pro-life convictions may not run as deep.

I feel pretty confident Barack Obama has already staked out his territory on this issue. Pat Buchanan has an interesting article entitled "A Catholic Case Against Barak." Here are a few excerpts.

"Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

"Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

"Obama is an abortion absolutist. 'I could find no instance in his entire career,' writes Freddoso, 'in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.'

"In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion."

It is my belief that as technology improves, it will make arguing the pro-choice position less and less tenable. The Democratic Party's "shift" may already reflect that. But my fear is that Obama and McCain's rush to the "center" on this issue reflects a disturbing undercurrent in our nation. We may find ourselves in a culture in which there is general acknowledgement that an act is reprehensible but simultaneously a widespread refusal to prevent it, either from apathy (McCain?) or lack of moral clarity (Obama?).

What is Obama Saying?

Here's a quote from Obama's "sermon" in Selma, Alabama (March 4, 2007) to a predominantly African-American church:

"Don’t think that fatherhood ends at conception."

Is the implication that fatherhood at least begins at conception? The full text of his message can be found here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_selma_speech_text_as_de.html.